Wednesday, November 23, 2011

The "Trafficking" Charade Groweth: Au Pairs and Gypsies

Suppose you hire an au pair while making it clear that she is expected to provide sex as part of the deal, which the woman accepts. A perfectly fair exchange, right? I would naturally expect sex from an au pair myself or I wouldn't hire her, and if she agrees, no reasonable person could object. Unfortunately, we live in a sick society with unbridled feminist power. In the feminist police state of Norway, this is now criminalized as "trafficking." A man and his wife are now on trial for this exact scenario, and it really makes my blood boil with renewed hatred. Just when you thought we had reached the high-water mark, feminism keeps escalating and inventing new ways of persecuting male sexuality. The feminist police state is on a relentless march towards criminalizing ever greater areas of male sexuality -- or in this case, applying existing laws in innovative ways in order to imprison more men. To feminist prosecutor Anne Cathrine Aga I have the following message: The Men's Movement is watching you, bitch, and we are seething with hatred against you personally and the police state you represent. Actions have consequences. Trials are still (mostly) public and they sink into our collective minds, where they form the basis of future activism. Hate breeds hate -- that is a fact of life too smugly ignored by feminists.

The feminist charade of "trafficking" is such a blatant travesty that I scarcely bother writing about it. Only the most gullible fools take the official propaganda at face value anymore, and besides, there are other activists at work diligently exposing the mendacity of the rescue industry more eloquently than I can, most notably The Naked Anthropologist. But I must mention one more example. There is a Gypsy family being prosecuted for "trafficking" in my home town right now. Their crime is simply to carry on their usual lifestyle, which is now defined as trafficking and sexual abuse. One woman is considered a victim of trafficking and sexual abuse by her husband because she at 15 is below the local age of consent, even though they are married according to their own customs. She is trying to get her husband out of jail, but the feminist police state insists on prosecuting. If just a tiny part of all the supposed sex slavery you hear about were true, it's funny that they have to pick a normal family going about their traditional ways to prosecute. I can only conclude that the entire rescue industry is full of shit. Where are the supposed millions of sex slaves in chains, eh? The man in this case is 20 and he is being imprisoned for having relations with his wife who is 15. They were legally married in a place where this is perfectly normal, then made the mistake of traveling to a progressive society. The feminist police state of Norway is a very hateful place indeed for men and will prosecute even when it hurts the "victim" too. Simply crossing the border is "trafficking" and their marriage is now defined as sexual abuse because we are so progressive. I for one do not accept this. I do not want to live in a society so full of hate, and that is why I am a men's rights activist.

These are just two examples going on right now in this feminist police state. We also have a fresh high-profile rape accusation well suited to expose the feminist definition of rape. The women of Norway now wield a shameless reign of terror over men, with unlimited access to feminist police power at their behest for the slightest sexual regret. However, there is a silver lining. Norway by now also has the strongest antifeminist resistance movement in the world, with seventy-seven dead feminists to show this year alone. 2011 is the year Norwegian men as a group emerged out of the blogosphere and into the battlefield. This in turn has led to a breakthrough for MRAs such as my good self in the public discourse, probably for the simple reason that the powers that be now realize ignoring us has deadly consequences. Men are angry now, and we have proven that we are deathly serious about resisting feminism. So the feminist prosecutors referred to above ought to wipe that smug look off their faces before it is too late. Clearly seventy-seven body bags wasn't enough, but I am fairly confident that you will be sorry one day.

If you had kids you'd hire an au pair so that you could have sex with her?

If my wife was OK with it, as was the case in that family, then I see no problem with having sex with the au pair. The point is not so much what I would do, but the utterly reprehensible legal climate which enables women to enter into sexual arrangements and then turn around and call it "trafficking" or any of an absurd assortment of sex laws. The state lets women have their cake and eat it. They can agree to sex in order to get benefits from men, as this au pair did, and then rely on the feminist state to save them from having to actually put out or have the man prosecuted afterwards as a sex criminal. This is of course totally unacceptable to men.

And no, I don't support what Breivik did. Killing kids or other innocent victims is wrong. But on the other hand, men should not just sit around and tolerate the feminist police state escalating, so it is a silver lining that SOMETHING is done about it, even if I don't agree with the type of activism.

To feminist prosecutor Anne Cathrine Aga I have the following message: The Men's Movement is watching you, bitch, and we are seething with hatred against you personally and the police state you represent. Actions have consequences. Trials are still (mostly) public and they sink into our collective minds, where they form the basis of future activism. Hate breeds hate -- that is a fact of life too smugly ignored by feminists.

You're against violent activism and yet you are perfectly happy to threaten someone with "future activism"?

Re: the article I think you are misrepresenting it (and the facts). It seems pretty clear that the au pairs in question had not agreed that they would also provide sexual services.

They can agree to sex in order to get benefits from men, as this au pair did

What "benefits" are you talking about her? Getting a job? The au pair certainly did want a job - as an au pair. Not as a prostitute.

Do you really think women should be prepared to sleep with their employers in order to get or keep a job?

The article mentions that the couple in question threatened to send the women back to their countries if they refused to provide sexual services. Hardly a friendly arrangement, is it?

You seem a little confused about the definition of an "au pair". It normally refers to someone who lives with a family, looks after their children and does housework.You state that you wouldn't employ one unless she'd be willing to sleep with you, but this isn't (and shouldn't) be part of the contract.

That's what the article says... Unless I'm misunderstanding it, she knew that was what was wanted of her, but traveled there anyway. But that is a strange thing to do, you gotta be naive to receive all that info on what your job will be, and still think that "maybe he's joking and it's not gonna happen". I understand she might have been poor and needed a job. But if a job is offered to you with clear information on what you must do and you consent to doing it, then a deal is a deal. If someone does something not according to the contract, only then can they be sent to jail.Employing someone and THEN threatening to fire them unless they have sex with you is a different matter entirely though...

So she just claims she didn't expect him to hold her to her part of the deal. In other words, she was relying on a free lunch and is now perversely backed by the feminist state.

Do you really think women should be prepared to sleep with their employers in order to get or keep a job?

Yes, of course. Employers should be allowed to hire, promote, or fire employees for whatever reason they see fit (in accordance with contracts they have agreed on), including sexual favors. This is a basic libertarian principle.

The au pair certainly did want a job - as an au pair. Not as a prostitute.

Sure, but what matters is what she actually agreed to. Women should be held responsible for their choices and commitments, just like men are.

The article mentions that the couple in question threatened to send the women back to their countries if they refused to provide sexual services. Hardly a friendly arrangement, is it?

Yeah, sending her back would be reasonable if she refuses to deliver the services promised. Just like men are fired if they refuse to do their jobs. Or do you think only men should be required to honor their commitments?

Very few people have heard your voice and very few people have listened to your arguments. Actually I couldn’t call what you write about, your thoughts or arguments. I heard you express yourself once and I really felt sorry for you. I felt sorry because you didn’t own anything of what you write about. I felt sorry because you couldn’t quote or defend yourself, I felt sorry because you think the world is against you, especially women. (You might think that I am a woman myself since I use expressions like “I feel sorry”, up to you. I won’t tell.Trafficking is a major problem and you take isolated cases to turn them into reality (your reality) and shallowness. Since the beginning of patriarchal societies women have always suffered more, they have been taken advantage of and they have been taken apart of their very own lives.Well, not talking about trafficking anymore. Not talking about women in Europe getting rights and living a better life in harmony (with men who have also adjusted to changes) either. Not talking about other problems in the world like hunger, poverty and abuse, which you don’t seem to care of.I see you and I see the shy, perhaps not best looking boy in school. I see you through high school, horny as just teenagers can be (both boys and girls). I see you invisible through a difficult period of time. I see your frustration growing. I see you targeting women. I see your needs. I see them getting out of proportion. You’re not the only one that can be frustrated in modern society; communication and expectations have changed; erotic capital? Women are also interested in sex,(you don’t need to have a penny in your pockets for them to want you, believe you me!) they may pick someone else rather than you but, they may also be rejected. Money is good if you’re thinking of marriage. Having a rich wife can’t be that bad right? Women pick, men pick. Have you forgotten your mates (“bastards” you probably thought at that time, “they’re getting it)I feel that you just have one prototype of woman in your head and that’s the one you have been turning into the object of your struggles. The state has become for you the girl who ignored you in high school, the woman you couldn’t get, the woman who would look down on you for paying for sex, the woman who doesn’t want you, the woman you want to force your wishes and needs upon. That is why you call it “the feminine state”. Quite cheap rhetoric if you ask me!

I call it the feminist state (not “feminine”) because it employs feminist ideology in order to systematically persecute male sexuality and leverage female sexual power by ever more absurd and draconian laws. Feminism does make it harder to get laid for a lot of men, but the things that happen after you get laid are equally problematic in case the woman decides to accuse you of some sex crime for whatever reason. The feminist police state does not just oppress male sexual losers. I just got an email from a man who has no trouble picking up women, yet he shares my hate for the feminist state.

Women are also interested in sex

This is a straw man. Of course women are also interested in sex, but not as readily and indiscriminately as men, and sex is a female resource as a result. And yeah, it would be nice to have a rich wife, but female hypergamy makes it exceedingly unlikely to get one.

Trafficking is largely a lie, or as ludicrously defined that my examples above are all they have to prosecute. This can be confirmed by taking a look at the court docket -- there are no cases of what a reasonable person would call sexual slavery. Those who honestly examine claims of trafficking outside the feminist agenda come to the same conclusion, such as Laura Agustin aka The Naked Anthropologist.

Since the beginning of patriarchal societies women have always suffered more

This is another feminist claim which simply does not hold up to scrutiny. For example, read this. “In brief, my research keeps telling me that brutal cultures are brutal to both sexes. Cultures in which women are raped arbitrarily are cultures in which men are shot dead arbitrarily.”

I don't see why a woman would accuse a man after an adult consented fuck....Still you pick on rare cases to support your ideas. 'Cause in your mind, the man has always something to lose when it comes to laws on sexual crimes: let me see, given the crime:they are put in jail a couple of years. A woman would suffer for the rest of her life

Still picking on "the feminist state". Does this "feminist state" of your not have a...what was it you called the state before it turned "feminist"?

What to call the state before feminism? Well, maybe patriarchy, except it’s not like women had no power, and it took over fifty years of women’s suffrage before things got out of hand. We still have patriarchy if you just count the proportion of men in positions of power. The problem is most of these men are manginas and just complaisantly do the feminists’ bidding. And then a predominantly male police backs up feminist laws with brute force. The gender war will thus entail mostly violence among men, until the powers that be come to the realization that we have had enough terror on both sides. Currently the police is strong and men's resistance is in its infancy, but this will change. Of course, something else entirely might happen, like the Singularity or something unforeseen, but I doubt it. Probably we will repeat the cycle of a feminist state devolving into chaos and being once again replaced by patriarchy in some form or another.

[Men] are put in jail a couple of years. A woman would suffer for the rest of her life.

The suffering from rape becomes increasingly difficult to maintain as the definition is watered down. In the Assange case, for example, the women were merely bothered by the disease risk of him not using a condom and did not even realize they had been "raped" until it was explained to them by a feminist prosecutor that it qualifies as such under Swedish law. Sofia Wilen could not even be bothered to tell him to stop when she woke up to a “rape” in progress. In other words, rape is now reduced from a traumatic attack to a technicality. Assange has spent nearly a year in house arrest already and faces years more in Swedish prisons. Does this really fit the crime? Most “rapes” are closer to this end of the spectrum than actual violent rape, and most common of all are the accusers who simply regret sex while drunk. Just imagine how many prisons we would have to build if we were to fully prosecute all 16000 legal rapes supposedly happening in Norway each year. Yet this is where we are heading as long as the feminist police state is allowed to escalate. Fortunately men get radicalized along the way and the effect is cumulative as more men are dragged through the courts and prisons. And then some men, such as myself, are idealistic enough to be radicalized to activism without even being a victim personally of the feminist police state. So we will give them a good fight; bring it on!

Of course the Gypsies should be left alone. On the bright side, maybe it is good news they are broken up. What if they had a kid and promptly applied for full state benefits? How would you like your check garnished so an alpha gypsy can bang pussy all day? Think about Eivind.

Also, I have never heard of anyone expecting sex as part of the contract with an au pair. Of course, we all know high powered executives get the cream of the pussy crop. But it is never considered an "expectation", at least not in the USA or Canada. If your nanny gives you pussy that is a benefit, but I have never heard of it as a cultural expectation.

I have a few comments to your blog. First off all shooting a bunch of children at a summer camp is not doing something about anything. Please tell me how such violence make things better for men? Now I am generally against using violence but to be honest there are times when you either have to be willing to use violence or accept the rule of those that do. That being said, violence just for the sake of violence solves nothing. How do killing unarmed children do anything to fix the problems you think society have?

That being said I agree when it comes to the au pairs, if they had been given proper information that their jobs would include sex then it is not fair that the husband and wife get prosecuted for it, the women knew what where expected and could have just not accepted the job. As long as there is informed consent I think something like this have no place in a trial and the laws that put that couple on trial is unjust. The same with people from other nations that marry young, one thing would be to refuse such marriages from being entered into in Norway, but when people first are married they should not be arrested for their relationship, I agree with this.

My main problem with your blog, and I do not mean any offense is that when you present your views and then say that the killings in Oslo and Utøya is a silver lining for your cause that sort of make it harder for the rest of us who share many of your views on feminism to express ourselves as those opinions then get associated with the actions of a monster and as such the bar for anyone listening to our views are raised.

"Men are angry now, and we have proven that we are deathly serious about resisting feminism."

You say "we are deathly serious". Does this mean that you feel some conection to Breiviks actions and to Breivik. Does it mean you feel that Breivik acted on behalf of yourself when he killed those children? Are you in some part taking credit for Breiviks action by speaking of the actions as something comitted by a group, a "we"?

Why didn't this couple just join a swingers club or something? There are plenty of web sites dedicated to couples who want to meet other people and spice up their sex lives.

Why the need to import women from poor backgrounds and attempt to pressure them into providing sexual services in addition to their other work? Could it be that they got off on the idea of having that kind of power over someone?

A whole day of housework and looking after children, and then you're expected to service some 50-year old man and his partner before you're allowed to go to bed? Wow, sounds appealing.

Because then they would have to swing with couples at their own level, not have an attractive young woman all to themselves. And even if there were alternatives, it does not in any way follow that they should be prosecuted. That’s like saying we’re gonna put you in jail for ten years for going to McDonald’s because you could have gone to Burger King. Or more aptly, jailing you for winning the lottery because you could have worked for the money instead.

Why the need to import women from poor backgrounds and attempt to pressure them into providing sexual services in addition to their other work? Could it be that they got off on the idea of having that kind of power over someone?

As a man, I know I am motivated by sex rather than power. Power is just an end to sex, and the claim that we get off on power for its own sake is a feminist lie, an extremely offensive one at that. So no, that’s inconceivable. As to why the need for importing poor women -- it’s not like young Norwegian women are lining up to fuck old married men. Sex is a female resource, so you simply have to take advantage of poverty to get regular sex with a woman that much more desirable than yourself. Feminists claim we care about power itself because they don’t understand male sexuality and they like to castrate us rhetorically. I can assure you that power (and violence in rape) is merely instrumental to obtaining sex, not an end in itself for the vast majority of men.

A whole day of housework and looking after children, and then you're expected to service some 50-year old man and his partner before you're allowed to go to bed? Wow, sounds appealing.

No one is disputing that the au pair got a bad deal. She sold herself short and understandably regrets not making twenty times more selling sex outright instead of the pittance she got as an au pair. But she agreed to it. And then it is her own fault, not a criminal act by her hosts. She should have picked another host family if she did not want to provide sex, which she knew would be part of the deal. If sex is really not expected of au pairs, it should be easy to pick another family.

My main problem with your blog, and I do not mean any offense is that when you present your views and then say that the killings in Oslo and Utøya is a silver lining for your cause that sort of make it harder for the rest of us who share many of your views on feminism to express ourselves as those opinions then get associated with the actions of a monster and as such the bar for anyone listening to our views are raised.

Anja, that is a good point. On the other hand, men have been docile and acquiescent for too long while the feminists have had free rein. We don’t want to align ourselves with a monster, but we don’t want to be pacifists, either. So it’s a conundrum -- what to do when we have so few reasonable activists on our side.

Please tell me how such violence make things better for men?

The rationale behind violent activism for men (which should NOT include killing kids, but rather feminist enforcers), as I see it, is to raise the costs associated with feminism beyond the level society can justify. For instance, if just 1% of men dragged to jail accused of rape by the feminist definition killed a cop, that would be 5-10 dead cops per year. Would cops we willing to work under so dangerous conditions? If a significant number of other victims of feminism did the same, such as men convicted of purchasing sex and so on, we would eventually cause so serious devastation that the feminists would have to reconsider if it is really worth it to have these laws. That is my dream, and as far as I can tell, it is the only realistic way to fight feminism. Feminists marched through the institutions and won, whereupon they instituted laws so favorable of women and hateful to men that men are now compelled to fight. Feminism is now so entrenched that violence is probably our only option, though I remain open to suggestions for nonviolent resistance also.

That being said, violence just for the sake of violence solves nothing.

I absolutely agree. And I don't think even Breivik would condone violence for the sake of violence. But you have to admit terrorism can be a very effective tactic. A few terrorists can bring a superpower to its knees, as we have seen repeatedly.

Does it mean you feel that Breivik acted on behalf of yourself when he killed those children? Are you in some part taking credit for Breiviks action by speaking of the actions as something comitted by a group, a "we"?

No, I don’t support killing children in any way. Nonetheless, a new antifeminist consciousness is emerging among men as a group, to which Breivik is at least tangentially related. That is a fact, although he is also besmirched by unsavory views regarding multiculturalism as well as horrendous acts.

I am a much purer MRA myself, untainted by extremist views and I have higher moral standards than killing children.

To Anonymous, who made up a whole story about Eivind's high school years:

First of all, that's a hell of a lot of assumptions. He was never mad at women, just feminists who created all the unfair laws. His point is that they made getting laid much harder, not to mention they punish men disproportionately to what they do. You don't have to be mad at women to point that out.

And women don't appear to be as into casual sex as men. Some can do it like men, but it's not the norm... I never hear of men who find sex without love unimaginable. I hear plenty of women say it. Stuff like this might be interesting:http://www.metro.co.uk/lifestyle/191192-women-feel-bad-about-one-night-standsSure women want sex too, just not the same way men want it.

Lets see if I get this right:Basically, you advocate terrorism because you realise that you do not speak on behalf of most men at all. If you did in fact speak for anybody except a handful whack jobs like yourself, you could easily have worked politically instead of fantasizing about cop killings.

But since you obviously are aware on some level that your chances of uniting blokes under banners such as: "Cheap hookers NOW!" or "Stop the feminist persecution!" or "Legalize sex with 12 year old girls!" are nonexistent, you instead promote shooting policemen in order to influence the laws on rape, age of consent and prostitution given by a democratically elected government.

Since you claim to be such an altruist and idealist, perhaps you have, like Breivik claims for himself, "exaggerated empathy"? After all, he thinks that the parents of the murdered teens should thank him. I imagine you would say something very similar to the family of the policemen you are so eager to gun down? Eivind Berge: "I shot him for the greater good, you see, if women get more power, guys like me do not get laid as often as "alphas" and that is really, really annoying for guys like me, and it really hurts too, so you must see that it was necessary to put a bullet in his head to stop the feminist state terror, for everybody's sake."

Except, I doubt you have the balls to do something like that yourself. Your wet dream seems to be to play Fjordman to another Breivik. After this latest blogpost I doubt anybody would listen to any whining on your part about being misunderstood though. It is perfectly clear what you advocate.

Laws against men have gotten way too unfair and sooner or later someone will react badly to them and cause trouble, inevitably. It doesn't take that many determined men to do a lot of damage, either. And I bet most of you would say it's OK to use undemocratic violence to get rid of the oppressors if women were the ones oppressed. Feminists are happy to bomb or invade countries for that and kill lots of innocent victims in the process.

This made me laugh. You are by far one of the more extreme people I have seen/read.

You managed to find something positiv about killing kids. You are extreme.

I find it weird that in your blogposts you express admiration for ABB, you speak of the actions on Utøya as something you feel like a part of (thats the "we"), you basically threaten the life of "femenist prosecutors", you cheer on the killing of policemenn, you advocate rape, and you go a long way to make a point out of the fact that you might commit murder due to lack of sex. Yet in the commentary below the post you claim to not be extreme. And, in the commentary, you time and time again insist on not supporting ABB at all, while in your blogpost you are clearly siding with him, or at least supporting parts of his agenda.

...in your blogpost you are clearly siding with him, or at least supporting parts of his agenda.

Supporting parts of an agenda does not mean I support killing the innocent, and feminists are at any rate no better. Feminism legitimizes war in order to liberate women, which then kills innocent people including women and children. Does this not make them just as extreme? If any ideology should be abandoned as soon as there is collateral damage, then there would be no feminism, either. Feminist intervention has killed far more children than MRAs.

If collateral damage is "damage to people or property that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome," then the kids at Utøya were not strictly collateral damage to Breivik since they were in fact his intended target at the time, and I wouldn't support such an operation. But in a larger sense they are incidental to the outcome in the war against feminism, and I do support the war against feminism. If you wage war, you know from the outset that there will be collateral damage. This didn't stop feminists from supporting war against the Taliban or various other regimes they don't like, and it won't stop MRAs from supporting the war against feminism. We should, of course, strive to minimize collateral damage, and that is where Breivik failed miserably.

Hey: you forgot that it was a self-declared feminist, the researcher von der Lippe, who said that feminism was being misudsed. I quote from your link:

“For me as a feminist it was a paradox to see how an ideology that has criticized the universal positions and demanded women’s right to self-representation was used to legitimize the decision to go to war,” says von der Lippe.

By the same logic it was "democracy" and "freedom" which killed civilians in Iraq, and we must all fight against democracy and freedom.Duh!

You said: "We still have patriarchy if you just count the proportion of men in positions of power. The problem is most of these men are manginas and just complaisantly do the feminists’ bidding. And then a predominantly male police backs up feminist laws with brute force."

So the problem isn't really that men do not have power, but that the WRONG KIND of men, that is men who do not think like you, for some mysterious reason gets elected into power.

And so you conclude that since the men in power are the wrong type of men, it is altruistic and fair and just to kill some of these "wrong kind of thinking men" on behalf of all "real men". Your misogyny is perhaps matched by your misandry.

"By the same logic it was "democracy" and "freedom" which killed civilians in Iraq, and we must all fight against democracy and freedom."

No, it was the government. Government makes us go to war and makes all the laws (not without the majority's help, I guess, since we still get to choose who gets to make the laws), and it just happens to be on the feminists' side. Sure feminists are not all one homogenous mass with a hive mind, but those who do no harm are not people we concern ourselves with. "War on feminism" is not a war on individual feminists just for their opinions. It's opposition to unfair laws.

Yes, I heard. Looks like women's studies will be abolished (or rather just one source of funding will be cut) as a separate program, but then they plan to incorporate the feminist gender perspective into all fields of research instead. I am not sure this is good news. Apparently some feminists themselves see it as a good thing, so it looks suspicious.

I found this information on AVoiceForMen.com. There is some very interesting stuff going on over there, you should check it out. Right now they are talking about Swedish feminism, and the articles are so good that they will do a radio show about feminism in Sweden. This is right up your alley. You are at ground zero for radical feminism, even in Norway.

Thanks, Tim. While I sometimes vehemently disagree with Paul Elam, as when he gets into his anti-game and most ludicrously his women-can-rape-boys nonsense, I see they got some surprisingly good material over at A Voice for Men right now. I am enjoying this article by Joakim Ramstedt:

I especially like how he is exposing the feminist police state for what it is.

ASSANGE AND THE UNUSED CONDOM

Here in Absurdistan we naturally assume that a man is guilty. Because just face it. He is isn´t he?

But the law also sometimes creates problems in our struggle for equality. For the most part, we solve these problems by sentencing men for sex crimes behind closed doors. That way the judges and prosecutors are left alone to rule without having to have a bunch of people, or even worse, journalists, going on about evidence and stuff.

You do realize that you are not representing anyone? You do understand that the majority (and by majority I mean practically everybody) of people will think of your views as absolutely discusting? If 69 dead kids is a silver lining in the fight against feminism, then you are basically supporting the sacrifice of chlidren so that you will easier get sex in the future, arent you?

It's getting a little tiresome to have to reiterate that I don't support killing kids. MRA isn't just about easier sex, either. It is about fighting every type of institutionalized misandry.

As to whom I am representing, you can, for example, look into the site AVoiceforMen.com mentioned above, and you will find a whole bunch of other MRAs/antifeminists besides me, including Swedish and Norwegian ones.

"However, there is a silver lining. Norway by now also has the strongest antifeminist resistance movement in the world, with seventy-seven dead feminists to show this year alone"

You write stuff like that and yet you complain about having to constantly repeat that you do not support the murder of kids. When you write stuff like this you should expect to be accused, because this reads as a clear support of the murder of the children on Utøya.

"Men are angry now, and we have proven that we are deathly serious about resisting feminism. So the feminist prosecutors referred to above ought to wipe that smug look off their faces before it is too late. Clearly seventy-seven body bags wasn't enough, but I am fairly confident that you will be sorry one day."

And the "we" is AVoiceforMen.com? You are claiming the 77 bodybags in their name? "we have proven that we are deathly serious about resisting feminism". The "we" killed those kids?

The Men's Movement is much bigger than A Voice for Men, obviously. Check out the other links in my blogroll. Breivik is also undeniably in some ways a kindred spirit to our movement whether we like it or not, but it's not my fault that he is so morally depraved as to murder innocent kids.

"Men are angry now, and we have proven that we are deathly serious about resisting feminism". You have proven yourself deathly serious by killing feminist children on Utøya? You are taking credit for the murder of kids, because you consider them feminists?

You come off as extremely paranoid, and it makes me sad for you. In addition to hating women, are you also racist? It's a genuine question, because many white power people are obsessed with Norse mythology and whatnot, as it seems you are. Just curious.

No, I am certainly not a racist. I don't concern myself with "white power," am not particularly into Norse mythology and I welcome men (and women) of all races as allies against feminism. I am not paranoid, either. The state-enforced feminism I blog about is documentably true and I merely want to mobilize a resistance movement against these feminist sex laws and the pigs who enforce them.

Bio

I am a libertarian and an antifeminist (not to be confused with misogynist). Unlike many bloggers I proudly assert my earnest opinion under my real identity even though it may get me excluded from polite society or worse. Sometimes I write about peak oil.